Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I quite often see adults cycling on the pavement on Lordship Lane but last night I finally witnessed one causing an accident. A cyclist in his thirties I would guess, passed me at speed on the pavement opposite House of Tipler, he went straight into the side of a small car pulling out of the small gated estate on the west side of the lane. The car was nudging out slowly and the driver could never have seen the fast moving cyclist. The cyclist appeared to go across the bonnet landing on the far side. The cyclist seemed shocked and winded but it was the young driver I felt sorry for. I hung around to make sure the cyclist didn't blame the driver for the incident. I guess because cyclist aren't required to be insured the driver will have to pay for the damage to his car which seems very unfair.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/36063-cycling-on-the-pavement/
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking you're more likely to be struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed by a motorist going through a red light than be hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.


So what's your point - are you lumping lemmings like the one you describe with all cyclists in a ploy to bash cyclists?


It just sounds like you've been waiting your entire life to view an accident like the one you desribe!

Lowlander, whilst accidents are alway horrid for those involved cycling on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. I am a cyclist but being an adult i cycle on the road. I am increasingly irritated by cyclists who peddle at speed up the wide pavement at the Peckham Rye end of East Dulwich road. On Tuesday i was nearly hit by a cyclist as i walked down to the bus stop outside the Costcutter.
I didn't read it like that at all. As someone who cycles i feel strongly about the fact that cyclists should be respected as road users and given the space they need to cycle safely. However there is never an excuse for riding dangerously, especially on pavements.
Clearly a grown man cycling at speed on the pavement is an idiot. It doesn't mean that I take satisfaction in seeing him hurt. I too feel sorry for the car driver, but my immediate concern in such a situation would be for the well being of the potentially injured man. I think this is Lowlanders point. Thankfully, I think this type of incident is extremely rare.
I am a cyclist, love my fixie, It just annoys me when my two wheeled colleagues pass me at the red lights or ride on the pavement, we don't have any special rights because we aren't polluting. I'm not bashing cyclists, just the few idiots like the guy yesterday.
I have to say I have limited sympathy with people who do not take responsibility for their own safety. Anyone can have an accident, but the behaviour as described sound pretty wreckless to me. I feel the same way about cyclist with ear phones in. Only today a cyclist overtook me on a corner, which was bad enough, she had ear phones in and couldn't hear the rubbish truck coming the other way around the corner. She was forced into my path and I had to take evasive action. In this case, had she been injured by the lorry, my symapthy for her would absolutley have been limited due to her wrecklessness. Why should I have concern for people who show limited concern for themselves and others?

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210



I don't see how the driver could have been more cautious, his driveway joins Lordship Lane beside a shop and he came out very slowly until he had a view from his side window by which time the cyclist was in the air.

I was walking towards the driveway as the cyclist came past me, it was like a slow motion film. I actually think other pedestrians blocked the cyclists view of the car til the last minute. Had the cyclist been on the road this would never have happened.

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed

> by a motorist going through a red light than be

> hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.


Great stat - what's the source please?

does seem a strange stat - unless he means a tenner win :)



ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?

Apparently 5 people per year are killed by lightening: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-282884


And "According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.


...


"Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210


Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as described by the OP.


Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than just reading it.

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?



LadyDeliah kindly gives the lightning and red lights


Lottery is 1 in 14 million (and I mean the jackpot). Plus you have to buy a ticket, which increases the odds :-)

> Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> described by the OP.

>

> Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> just reading it.


We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The car was on the pavement and clearly the driver hadn't looked carefully either way before driving on to it - otherwise they would have seen the cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at fault too. However not being able to see is not an excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are driving on the pavement.

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> > described by the OP.

> >

> > Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> > wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> > chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> > reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> > just reading it.

>

> We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The

> car was on the pavement and clearly the driver

> hadn't looked carefully either way before driving

> on to it - otherwise they would have seen the

> cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at

> fault too. However not being able to see is not an

> excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are

> driving on the pavement.



The cyclist rode into the side of the car. The car didn't hit the cyclist. The cyclist was on the pavement. Cyclist 100% to blame.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 [email protected] Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
    • Best to just get in touch with the council. You need to see what works were approved and the scope.  It's probably advisable to get an independent legal survey (not a standard RICS) and look at current condition, what they said they'd fix, if they did what they said and what the problems are with what they did. Was it just your flat and the other flat mentioned? Asking in case there's any other leaseholder/ tenant involved  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...